Search form

You are here

The Step-Through Punch

A quick question for you regarding the step-through punch. I recently spoke to my instructor about dropping this from our self protection syllabus and he advised me not to. This is my question to him:

"Basically I was thinking of dropping the training of the step-through punch but I then remembered that you do a lot of those attacks when we train. Can you give me some details of why it is important to train this? My reasoning for dropping it was that you never see this in a self defence situation but I’m sure you have many reasons for training this and that I just don’t understand them! Can you educate me on this?"

He responded with:

"its not a long answer mate..its all down to body mechanics .. you have to 'know' your attackers momentum and follow through...simply put we over-egg the pudding..by understanding this step-through you will be better prepared for a 'lesser' momentum."

I respectfully told him that I thought it was totally different and could be elaborate, he didn't. So with this in mind Iain, can you or someone here explain to me why it is important to train it for self protection? And perhaps a brief explanation as to why it is used in karate training to this day.

Exactly, that's my point. I personally don't want to teach any aspect of it in my syllabus as I am teaching purely self protection skills and not a martial art. I am interested in the history of it though so I can understand it’s context more. I feel the answer my instructor gave is not thorough enough.

Jonny, the most reasonable use for the oi tsuki (lunge punch) I've seen occurs in kata bunkai following an uke waza (blocking technique) where the "blocking technique" is interpreted as a joint lock, hair grab and pull, or some other technique that places the attacker in an off balanced and compromised position. Typically, such a maneuver brings the attacker's head down to the solar plexus level presenting it for a strong finishing blow to the jaw or the base of the skull. Often this blow can be delivered in a reverse punch fashion with no step required; however, having the attacker at a momentary disadvantage gives you a great opportunity to exploit the added power the momentum of an oi tsuki generates. An example of this would be any old pinan/heian or taikyoku where a gedan uke/gedan barai (low block) is followed by an oi tsuki. Iain and others often show the "block" as taking the attacker into a standing straight arm lock. The follow up would then involve relinquishing the wrist control, but maintaining touch with the hand nearest the shoulder for proprioceptive feedback, and blasting the guy with a shot behind the ear. I find in practice that when I'm taller than my partner, I tend to plant my feet and hit him with a reverse punch as stepping spoils the distance for optimum impact. But, when he's taller I often step with the punch to generate more force. Hopefully someone posts a video to illustrate properly what my ramblings probably don't.

Thanks Nezumi. That explains it a lot. My problem has been when it is used as an attack as opposed to a defensive strike. I find it pointless to discuss self protection but then have someone attacking in this manner. If I'm missing something I'm very open to learning more about it. Many thanks again :)

This is obviously just my take on this, and I am not attempting to override the word of your instructor at all.

Karate techniques are a standardized way of moving. The standards will vary slightly from style to style but generally a lunge punch will look the same for everyone. The basic mechanics are there to show how we move, with bodyweight and timing, balance, and so on. We move to a count a lot which has the negative effect of making everything a "snapshot" in time instead of a fluid combination. We look like karate punchers, not boxers. In application we should fall somewhere between the two probably.

So, we have this exagerated standard(karate lunge punch) of what a punch is. It is done so much that we are conditioned to use it anytime someone says punch, even when we are playing the part of the bad guy. Everyone falls into this until you are told bad guys don't attack that way. Usually there is a longer range that also comes with this type of karate attack. This extended range is a worse habit than the actual punch in my opinion. I agree that we are not training to defend against karate punches so we shouldn't practice against them.

This "punch" has been a bone of contention for me for the last three years.

As people have said, the punch only exists in the dojo, not the street, so I also see no point defending against it. Especially as a lot of the defences agaisnt it only work agaisnt it, and would not work with a more realistic punch of sliding forward witht the opposite leg, i.e. a cross.

I think people get taught it, and don't have the courage or common sense to change it once they become instructors, hiding behind the "if it isn't broken don't fix it" train of thought.

Interestingly Oi Tsuki (translated as Chasing Thrust, I believe) is almost never seen in modern kumite/tournaments, Gyaku Tsuki is and I feel this is because it has far more utility as a punch.

Keeping in mind it most certainly is not an effective street attack, very rare at best, then where and why did it develop the way it did?

For me it's simple, the ammount of locking worked from the motion gives the game away, of course you can hit with it and I do from time to time but its a different animal from say Jun Tsuki (front hand jab).

I actually quite like Oi tsuki as a self protection technique (but not how it is applied in classical karate dojo's)

it is a perception thing.. rather than looking at it as "a stepping punch" you should view it as a "punch with a step in it". There are many applications for this type of motion (some have been covered above)..

put simply - striking whilst using your momentum from stepping forward to unbalance and clear obsticles from your target from the "defenders" position, has a lot of merit.

As an "attacker" the whole concept seems wrong to me.. training to defend from a single punch to the head in the classic Block-counter model is not realistic... As a defender you should be focussing on handling the flurry of attacks (some of which may involve stepping forward). containing, controlling and then dominating...

I agree with Nezumi above in that the oi tsuki as the second move in Heian shodan following the opening arm-bar (gedan beri) feels good. However, the 3 oi tsukis on their own later in the kata do not have such obvious uses - maybe as pushes or unbalancing moves.

If you need to chase someone to punch them in a self-defense situation you may be better turning and running the other way!

In his pinan/heian bunkai videos, Vince Morris describes the oi tsuki as an all-in committed punch not unlike MMA's "superman punch". As to why there are three of them in a row on the back end of pinan nidan/heian shodan he openly admits he has no clue. I'm all about function over form, but could it be that sometimes kata structure supports certain aesthetically desirable qualities such as balance and symmetry?

In his pinan/heian bunkai videos, Vince Morris describes the oi tsuki as an all-in committed punch not unlike MMA's "superman punch". As to why there are three of them in a row on the back end of pinan nidan/heian shodan he openly admits he has no clue. I'm all about function over form, but could it be that sometimes kata structure supports certain aesthetically desirable qualities such as balance and symmetry?

I have Vince Morris' book. I don't rate it.

In terms of aesthetics in kata, I believe that to us as people that understand kata, they are indeed often beautiful things to behold when done well. However, I think that's a byproduct. I find quality ground grappling aesthetically pleasing. Those that don't understand it often cite it as "boring." The kata are about function first and foremost.

The patterns of Taekwondo on the other hand, they're intended to have aesthetics built into them, yes.

I have found this discussion illuminating and have changed my views somewhat: I still think oi tsuki has limited use in the sports kumite context that it is still often taught, but as a technique probably grabbing with the hikite hand maybe with the intention of gyaki tsuki, but which may follow through and end up as oi tsuki depending on the movement of the opponent there is value

Personally I think the lunging punch is very effective when used in the right context. The hikite should be used and the application should be close in. The step projects bodyweight to ensure a previously made vulnerability is fully exploited. These videos cover some of the issues raised in this thread:

A typical application of the lunging punch is shown from 2:40 onward

What angles mean and why things are in threes

I hope that helps and adds something to what as been a very good thread.

As regards defending against a formal punch from 10 feet away, as we see in lot’s of “traditional” one-step practise, It’s not something I do and I’ve never heard a convincing argument for such practise. Podcast on that very topic coming soon!

Just my own experience: the mechanics of a Karate oi tsuki don't really work if you step in and lean to do the punch, in the way your would do sort of a boxing overhand, but it is not a jab either. If I punch like this, stepping in doesn't work for me.

The timing is different with the Karate oi tsuki, there really isn't a seperate discrete step and punch here, just the hikite motion as the opponent moves and you move, if this makes any sense.

In terms of aesthetics in kata, I believe that to us as people that understand kata, they are indeed often beautiful things to behold when done well. However, I think that's a byproduct. I find quality ground grappling aesthetically pleasing. Those that don't understand it often cite it as "boring." The kata are about function first and foremost.

The patterns of Taekwondo on the other hand, they're intended to have aesthetics built into them, yes.

Hey Tau, which of Vince's books are you referring to? He's done quite a few.

Ah yes. That's a very old book mate; nearly 20 years now. Vince is very proud of it as it was, for its time, quite unique. But he also views it with some chagrin I think - only in that it was so successful and therefore many people have the impression that that's what he teaches now or that's where his thinking is now. In fact, he is one of the pioneers of practical bunkai and doesn't teach anything like that.

Try "Rules of Combat" which you can obtain from the Kissaki Kai site. Or, better yet, get hold of one of his many videos. I'd recommend "Essential Kissaki Kai Karate do" or "Essential Bunkai of the Heian Kata" given that's what we're talking about.

Iain's video above, the bit at 2:40, is very much in alignment with what Vince teaches now and has done for more than 15 years.

Many thanks to everyone for their input with this thread. It's something that has bothered me for a long time but I never really got a solid answer on it. What Iain shows here (great videos as usual, Iain) makes a lot of sense to me and when he says "I’ve never heard a convincing argument for such practise" that totally rings true. I now know that it's best for me to drop this as an attack as things never happen that way. This is what I thought all along. Look forward to reading more on this forum and adding to it where I can :)

Hi-this was a query of mine this week too. I teach self defence but also applied, bunkai based Shotokan Karate. I love both-and they complement one another. But I could see how nature has favoured the big right-haymaker. It seems more powerful-so why dont we find more hook punches in our katas?

I asked John Burke sensei who replied as follows:

"Hi Andrew. You can see a bit about oizuki here

and yes, I'll go into a bit more detail in 2013 week 8 for you as 6 & 7 are already spoken for. Essentially, it comes down to "unexpected" movement. The tighter line, twisting punch does damage that the average punch relies on force for, only we do it with technique. Remember, the japanese don't have a word of their own for punch. They're saying thrust fore fist. More details soon."

The front stance destabilises, smashes- the punch is not an end product when fulling extended-at close quarters chances are it wont extend that far...but you try! Also its a cork screw punch-banned in boxing-because it tears flesh...apparently!

This is an interesting topic for me coming from a boxing background. Im not sure how much more power would be generated with this than by lunging in the same stance. When we jab, we are taught to take a little step in. You get a similar effect, but much quicker.

If you look at the majority of self defence situations on youtube, the guy that wins is the one who is most aggressive and throws the most straight punches. I can throw a step-jab, cross, jab in the same time it takes me to do one step punch, for a minimal increase in power.

For example, this guy

He survives by using fast, accurate punches. I think by utilizing propper body mechanics and rotation you can generate more than enough power to KO someone with your lead arm, let along the rear arm without stepping through.